I love the fact that he tries to portray you as "spluttering" a reply to which he "interjected." Accurate transcription ripped from context can be used to misrepresent as readily as outright lies; anyone who listens to the recording will hear that the reason that section was disjointed was because he wouldn't shut up and let Ann get a word in edgeways. It's a rare treat to hear someone talking so much without making any substantive assertion, all for the purpose of bullying someone into shutting up because you can't rebut her argument.

That Bill confidently asserts that Ann is someone "to whom the label "conservative" ... really appl[ies]" shows how seriously he ought to be taken. When an op/ed descends to the level of farce within the first paragraph, no good will follow it.

And you know what, Bill? As amused as I am to be called an Althousian "dittohead," you still haven't provided any coherent alternative explanation; citing an offhand report by CNN asserting that there is one doesn't make it so, and calling me an "idiot" for making a typo in your minor newspaper's name doesn't distract anyone. But keep talking, Bill, for the reasons you quote.

I don't understand your reluctance to embrace your conservatism and being a republican.

Your support for our President has been more than enough and support for the war on terror proves that you are a solid republican in good standing. You don't cowtow to the liberals anymore and that's why us republicans love you so much.

That Feingold badge is tired and old so move on from it.

We have a war to fight and need you to celebrate your winger status not always say that you are not one.

We love you for being a winger, otherwise we wouldn't come here to kiss your ass. If you suddenly really became a "democrat" or "liberal" you would lose your base and that would be a disaster.

We love you for being a winger, otherwise we wouldn't come here to kiss your ass.

No, she's at odds with most conservative issues. But I enjoy reading her because there are very few places you can get opposition opinion from a sane Democrat these days. If the Dem party had more Lieberman's and fewer Moonbats, Althouse would not be in demand.

It's what we call and "alternative newspaper" -- and it's in Madison, Wisconsin -- which makes it doubly alternative. This man, who sat next to me and talked to me after the show, encouraging me to promote his book, is preaching to his choir and demonizing me. It's not pretty, and it's not journalism.

Ann Althouse said..."By the way, I love the part where he mocks one of my commenters for a typo, when he puts up an article on his newspaper's website that has typos. "

Yeah. I wrote extemporaneously and made one typo that I can't go back and edit. He thought on it for nearly a week yet still couldn't string something coherent together and proof read it (and he can still fix his typos!). As Bugs would say, what a maroon.

Still, let's try and keep this in perspective. This guy may be a chump, but he's no Greenwald. Imagine the same thing, but nine times longer and with even less content arranged in the faint resemblance of an argument!

I've read the Isthmus from it's inception for the local news. Thus, it is no news to me that they regard "...'Republican'" as a high insult." It can't be news to you, either, Ann. Nor can the disingenuousness and dishonesty of Bill Lueders.

My "favorite" piece of recent times was the cover story "What's Wrong With Republicans?"

Jeez, Ann, you sure are thin-skinned. For the record, I did not "write a big nasty article" and publish it in my newspaper. This was done as an online post; I wouldn't waste space in my paper on such matters. It's shocking to me that you -- and your ridiculous readers -- refuse to concede that you were COMPLETELY WRONG is what you attacked me about on the radio. As I said. it's no wonder you support Bush, a man for for objective fact is a mere inconvenience.

One more thing. I did ask if you would like a copy of my book, and I would love if you read it because it's a good book (although now, I probably am not going to buy you a copy, you can order it yourself). For you to turn this against me is really unfair.

Bill, you wrote a big, nasty, disingenuous article and published it on your newspaper's website. You've not even begun to establish that what was said last Friday was completely wrong.

Moreover, you can argue the semantics of whether an article is "published" "in" a newspaper when it appears in the online edition, but I suspect that the argument that you didn't "publish" it because it was in the online edition wouldn't get you very far in a libel lawsuit, or from a freelancer seeking to recover for unpaid fees. This ship has sailed; if you put it on your newspaper's website, it bears your imprimatur no less than it does when it's printed on dead trees.

If your appearances on Joy's show and this column are anything to go buy, your assessment of the merits of your book are a touch implausible.

By the way, you don't get to talk about "fair" after your performance last week, particularly when supplemented by this op/ed. You repeatedly interrupted Ann, never once with anything substantive, and then have the gall to portray a verbatim transcript as unprompted spluttering? Flyweight.

You really are an idiot. Ann says I published the article in my newspaper. I point out that it was an online post. You say I'm wrong? That it's somehow the exact same thing? It isn't. I can't believe I am even arguing this point.

I listened to the radio exchange yesterday; I didn't interrupt Ann any more than she interrupted me. It was a back-and-forth exchange is which we both had every opportunity to make our respective points. The difference is that the point I made about waiting to get more information before leaping to conclusions was proven correct, and the conclusions Ann leapt to were proven incorrect.

If having a federal official state that an investigation showed that there were innocent explanations for all four incidents and that no one was being arrested (ask the folks at Gitmo how reticient Uncle Sam is to arrest potential terrorists) makes no difference to you, than there is no use trying to argue with you, because fact and truth are irrevelevant to your view of the world.

(ask the folks at Gitmo how reticient[sic] Uncle Sam is to arrest potential terrorists) makes no difference to you, than[sic] there is no use trying to argue with you, because fact and truth are irrevelevant[sic] to your view of the world.

Wait a minute...A guy who writes like that is an editor??? And makes fun of other commenters here for typos? WTF??

"Ann says I published the article in my newspaper. I point out that it was an online post. You say I'm wrong? That it's somehow the exact same thing? It isn't."

Promise me you'll try that argument if and when you get hauled into court for libel. "I didn't publish it, your honor, it was in the online edition. You have in-house counsel there? Swing by her office.

"I can't believe I am even arguing this point."

Don't worry, I can believe you're advancing that argument. I knew you were a funny guy.

"I didn't interrupt Ann any more than she interrupted me. It was a back-and-forth exchange is which we both had every opportunity to make our respective points."

No it wasn't. You wouldn't shut your yap long enough for her to finish making a point. Instead you kept -- on -- talking, and my suspicion is that the main reason is that you were fully aware that the one thing that your position can't withstand is a counterargument. Any counterargument, that is, because it depends for its existence on unchallenged ipse dixit. You have no answer to the central question: what ordinary and legitimate explanation would explain a block of cheese wrapped with wire and electronics? If you actually stopped to listen to Ann, that might pose a challenge to your hermetically-sealed intellectual world (one reason, one suspects, why so many on the left are afflicted with or affect ADS), but I promise you'll learn something. Actually, in your case, I promise you'll learn a lot.

"The difference is that the point I made about waiting to get more information before leaping to conclusions was proven correct, and the conclusions Ann leapt to were proven incorrect."

Bullshit. If you had proof, you would cite it. Instead, you cite a CNN report which asserts there were valid reasons without stating any.

A few years ago, there was a Dilbert strip that made a point very much applicable to you, Bill: you say "here's my take on this," but when did ignorance become a point of view?

Bill said..."[F]act and truth are irrevelevant [sic.] to your view of the world."

I would have said the same about you, based on your comments thusfar. By the way, it's spelled "irrelevant" -- which I'd normally let go, because typos happen when writing blog comments, as you now no doubt see. But since you called me an idiot for putting a typo in the name of your irrevelevant (sic.) little rag, I think pointing out your mistake is richly-deserved.

You're right, Simon. that was quite a typo, a real embarassment. Let me concede the point: the word is spelled "irrelevant." In my haste to be done with you and get on to more important things, I got it wrong. I'm sorry.

It is not within my power to make others acknowledge their own capacity for getting things wrong. If you still feel justified in ripping me a new one for urging that people wait to get more information before concluding, in the absense of any evidence, that these incidents involving cheese and wires represent a confirmed terrorist threat, so be it.

Bill, for Pete's sake - there's nothing to apologize for in making a typo in a blog comment. When writing comments on blogs, typos sometimes happen, and once they do, you can't change them. That's the point. So if you're going to apologize to me for anything, don't apologize for your typo(s) - apologize for calling me an idiot in your op/ed for making a typo. Personally, I don't much care if you do or don't, but I do think you owe Ann an apology for the blatant misrepresentation in your op/ed.

By the way, you give me way too much credit. 'Twasn't no effort. You ripped yourself a new one.

How about we just don't jump to the conclusion that it's terrorism before asking questions (similar to shouting "fire" in a movie theater)and we also don't ignore that we have to investigate things that are suspicious. For Pete's sake- does anyone REALLY not take terrorism threats seriously anymore? Everytime I go to the fricking airport it takes me forever to get through security and they still won't let me bring my 4 oz bottle of perfume on board. Also, why does everyone always think the terrorists are going to attack on the airplane? If the cheese and wires and devices weren't taped together would it have been as alarming? I assume it wouldn't be that hard to tape those things together on board. Do we just have to keep an eye out on everyone's luggage for any suspicious combination of objects?

I apologize for calling you an idiot in your posting. Typos happen in this kind of medium, and they are no big deal. It was an offhand comment, meant to be funny. But in the ABSENCE of my own perfection in the realm of typing/spelling, I should not have made fun of you for getting the name of my paper wrong. I'm sorry.

I admit I kind of enjoy this exchange, but I really need to extricate myself. I think I made a valid point in urging caution about the cheese. You think declaring that it is proof of a terrorist plot in the making, for which no one has been arrested or even fined, is much more sensible. Let's leave it at that.

From CNN"TODD: In fact, a U.S. government official, familiar with the investigation, now says there were valid explanations for all four incidents in that bulletin and no charges will be brought in any of these cases."

Simon, I must have missed the part where Ann Althouse admits she was wrong to say a) Bill said she was a Republican, b) this was published in the newspaper or c) that she was wrong about the scare-mongering she engaged in on the radio:

Althouse: "It looks like it was a dry run for a bomb on planes. There were four instances and one was in Milwaukee... . In fact, the block of cheese was the same consistency as a kind of explosive substance that could be used. And so it looks like they used the cheese with some kind of wires and devices around it to see if they could get it through security, and then if they could get that through security, they'd know they could get a bomb through."

She is clearly motivated by a deep and abiding fear, not any kind of clear thinking.

Given that she never provided a link to Bill's column, this insult by you based only on a second-hand account from a hysterical Althouse shows you to be lacking in integrity and having real bad judgment.

Alpha, you're an idiot. And more than that, a joke - and so you will remain unless or until you (or Bill) provide some kind of explanation as to what normal activity could motivate someone to try and sneak a block of cheese with various wires and devices attached to it onto a plane. When you've got such an explanation, feel free to come back, but not unless or until.

And as to your subsequent comment about there being no link - she linked back to her previous post, in which Bill linked to his op/ed. Why should she give him the attention (and the traffic) of linking? This is at this point a fairly well-established practice here. So it isn't a second-hand account, I read the piece, as I think we all did. Except you, apparently.

It's not my job, or Bill's job, to help you figure out what innocent explanations might be involved.

I provided a link to pictures of the cheese that caused Ann Althouse and the rest of the wingosphere to piddle their pants.

There's also the following account from Bill's story, which you obviously didn't read or you wouldn't keep asking the question:

"SARA WEISS, AIRPORT PASSENGER: I'm not a terrorist. I'm a 66-year-old woman with a bad back. I was on vacation going to visit my son in San Diego.

TODD: Sarah Weiss says the ice packs she carried, like these, had clay inside them because they were old and that's the way they were made. Weiss was held for three hours, questioned by San Diego harbor police and two men who she said were in plain clothes and didn't identify themselves. She says one question, from a San Diego harbor policeman, shocked her.

WEISS: Do you know Osama bin Laden? And my response was, first of all, I thought it was a very ridiculous and strange question because if I did know -- if I really did know Osama bin Laden and if I were a real terrorist, do you think I'd answer that question?"

AL, You still haven't provided an alternative explanation (which, whether you like it or not, is your burden), and better yet, having failed to do so, try to pivot to talking about what happened at a completely different airport, a completely unrelated issue which Ann didn't talk about last week and hasn't talked about since. And you accuse people of lacking integrity!

Again - stay focussed on Milwaukee, provide an explanation for the cheese, or you ain't got diddly.

I posted this late on the earlier thread so I'll post it again here since we're still fighting the same fight.

******************Pogo, Prof A

Who’s Conservative, who’s Liberal according to the MSM?

In the '60s there was a book entitled

"Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me."

(Never read it all the way through; never will, but that's not the point.)

With the Media, the reality is

"Been Left So Long It looks Like Center To Me"

So “Center-Right” seems to them “Conservative” & “Right” seems to them "Arch" or "Ultra" Conservative & not welcome to our show, my dears. And to these Leftists posing as Centrists, any Communist, Marxist, etc., i.e., anyone more to the Left than they, no matter how far, is just "Left" or "Liberal" (Hard to find an "Arch" or "Ultra" Liberal in their worldview, unless the guy insists that he is an honest-to-goodness Marxist & will not be called merely a “Liberal”.)

And MSM TV looks carefully for Economic Conservatives who are Social/Cultural Liberals to fill the token "Conservative" talkinghead slot. This results in everyone on the MSM panel knocking President Bush & all GOP candidates other than Rudy & declaring that all Republicans who are hung up on social/cultural ideas are yucky. And even the Economic Conservative token must be someone who is not, gasp, Friedman-esque (Milton, of course, not Tom or Kinky), or believes that Tom Sowell or Pogo’s Hazlitt have said anything of value. In other words, these faux centrists don’t want someone who will dispute “facts” like simply dividing a shrinking pie equally is a sign of progress, that there is a free lunch & that, scientifically speaking, partial birth abortion is, um, suspiciously like infanticide.

I’m sure that you have already read Orwell’s Homage To Catalonia which makes all this MSM unthought clear.

Even Fox News' idea of fair & balanced often consists of having either an ultra liberal & an ultra conservative or, worse, a GOP Flack & a Dem Flack, arguing talking points. Balanced, but not helpful.

I exempt Brit Hume’s hour from the last snide remarks. In fact, when my Left/Liberal friends chide me for limiting my TV news to Fox, I tell them that I learn the Left/Liberal line from Mara Liasson & Mort Kondrake & a few others, so why bother.

I've got to agree with Alpha on this one, as much as I loathe The Isthmus -- not for being biased (which, of course, is the job of alternative weeklies), but for being boring. Bill's weak performance in these blog comments is just one small sign of how crappy the overall paper is. (Why couldn't Dan Savage have stayed in Madison and given us a real alternative weekly?)

But anyways, it was probably a tourist. What do you take home to friends and family after visiting Wisconsin? Well, cheese, of course. That's what my sister does every time she comes to Madison (though, wisely, she gets the curds and not the big blocks).

And yup, I looked at the picture: big blocks of cheese (pepper jack, maybe?) and power cords for a video camera or laptop or something.

It seems that (and we should at least give Bill credit for this) we can be alert to the threat of terrorism and level-headed at the same time, no?

"It seems that (and we should at least give Bill credit for this) we can be alert to the threat of terrorism and level-headed at the same time, no?"

Well put. And, we also agree on the cheese curds. (yum)

We disagree, however, on the quality of the paper. They've done a lot of good and original reporting. They were all over the caucus scandal years in advance of the WSJ, for example. And there's that whole Cry Rape expose, which Bill busted wide open.

I still think Ann owes an apology here. To Bill, but also to her readers for lying to them.

I have nothing to apologize for. My point was about the way he reacted to a news report. His instinct was -- in my view -- insufficiently concerned about the risks of terrorism. I said so. Period. That further news came out later -- assertions from government officials who may or may not be telling us the whole story -- is utterly irrelevant to the issue of how this newspaper editor decided to write about what happened between us last Friday in the studio.

Bill Lueders has written a vicious article about me, swinging wildly in an effort to damage my reputation. He knows very well that I am not a Republican, but he writes it anyway, because it's a big slur here in Madison. He writes that I "spew" "talking points," which I do not. I read mainstream media and state my own opinions. He writes that I spluttered as if I couldn't collect my thoughts coherently, when you can listen to the audio and hear that I can't finish because he speaks over me. That is, he uses dishonest transcription and characterization in a blatant effort to make me look bad.

And this he chooses to do after being friendly with me in person and encouraging me to publicize his book. Really, I'm shocked that an editor of a newspaper would behave this way.

I read Bill's piece. Didn't see him refer to Ann as a Republican anywhere in it, though. And, like AL, I can attest to its absence from The Isthmus, which, sorry AL, remains as boring this week as ever. (Does Madison really need a story about white, liberal do-gooders in Africa? Aren't we self-congratulatory enough?)

Jim C. said..."I read Bill's piece. Didn't see him refer to Ann as a Republican anywhere in it, though."

Concededly so, but he did asseverate that she "spews Republican talking points while claiming to be an ideological virgin, a person to whom the label 'conservative' doesn't really apply," and claimed that her "imperfect" "commitment to truth" made it "No wonder [that] she votes Republican." The intent to associate her name with the word "Republican" is fairly clear even if he didn't actually say "Althouse is a Republican." And as if to prove the maxim that true statements ripped from context can deceive as readily as false statements," it's literally true but misrepresentative to say that "she votes Republican." True in the sense that those words might be interpreted as literally meaning that she has voted for at least one Republican candidate, but misleading in the sense that the ordinary usage of that phrase would connote that she routinely votes Republican, as opposed to abberationally as is the case (as was made clear to Bill on air).

Simon, Got it. And agree. What the heck is an "ideological virgin" anyways? I suppose he meant that she presents herself as ideologically neutral. But since when is virginity neutral? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

That said, there is a somewhat substantial linguistic difference between calling someone something and associating the person with the thing. Ann accused him of doing the former; he did the latter. Maybe she wasn't reading all that closely. But, and I think she's said this somewhere in the past, words matter. So does close reading.

He knows very well that I am not a Republican, but he writes it anyway,Read much? He never said that. He did not call you a Republican.

"Bill Lueders has written a vicious article about me,"Ann, honey, your reputation was already in tatters. But, he didn't. He relayed the conversation, provided real facts (a concept you might want to familiarize yourself with, in lieu of your leaping to conclusions schtick).

"He writes that I "spew" "talking points," which I do not."You don't know yourself well. On that very radio show you said "liberals and Democrats don't take terrorism seriously." You constantly echo and link to right wing blogs like Drudge, Volokh, Instpundit, etc. You act as a repeating station ("empty room in the right wing echo chamber") for right wing themes like that greatest hit, "Kerry eats alone," or "Hillary is a calculating bitch (see that cleavage)" or "'Islamist' is okay, but 'Christianist' is bad."

Your right wing spewing makes for a very long list. I could expound further, but I'd fall asleep.

Sounds to me like you interrupted him and then he returned the favor. And you definitely sputtered.

Come on, Ann. Apologize already. You were wrong, you leapt to false conclusions (as you do so often), and you did so irresponsibly on the radio. Someone here described it well as "like screaming fire in a theater.'

Are Jim C, Bill, and Alpha Liberal honestly arguing (on this thread and the other) that saying that someone "spews Republican talking points" and "votes Republican" is not, in essence, saying that person is a Republican?

No, they are dishonestly arguing. They are trying to make a distinction without a difference, to parse words to obfuscate, to confuse rather than to clarify.

He did the functional equivalent, as "smilin'n jack" and I noted above.

"[Lueders]relayed the conversation...."

No: he misrepresented the conversation, by presenting a transcript of what Ann said, omitting from said transcript his repeated interruptions preventing her from finishing a sentence, and presenting the necessarily fragmented result as evidence that she can't form a cohesive sentence. That is mendacious in the extreme, and the beauty of it is, anyone can go and listen to the audio and hear how clearly he misrepresents it.

"You don't know yourself well[, Ann]. On that very radio show you said 'liberals and Democrats don't take terrorism seriously.'"

If a GOP talking point was "the sky is blue," the mere fact that it's a talking point doesn't change the fact of the matter. Likewise, it may well be a GOP talking point that "liberals and Democrats don't take terrorism seriously" (I wouldn't know, I don't read the memos), but it is nevertheless true for a great many (albeit by no means all, as exemplified by Ann herself) liberals and Democrats that they don't take terrorism seriously.

But, this is funny. The bully's bluff is called. Can't wait to see the video.----Guys, words mean what they mean. Ann goes off on others saying they're bad writers. Well, a good writer doesn't misrepresent the facts like this, unless it's intentional.

When Joe Lieberman talks like a Republican, he can be described as such with people still holding in their minds the concept that he is not a Republican.

Sometimes trying to speak rationally with the Althouse fanbase is like playing with silly putty. ---Ann, did you apologize and I missed it?

Alpha, what you and Lueders don't realize is the supporting the war is something both Republicans and Democrats can do . There is a such thing as a liberal hawk. You've forgotten that. Which is why... as I said in the radio show... I was forced to vote for Bush. In your view, presumably, Lieberman is not a Democrat. This is a huge problem with the Democratic party.

Ann Althouse said..."Alpha, what you and Lueders don't realize is the supporting the war is something both Republicans and Democrats can do . There is a such thing as a liberal hawk. You've forgotten that."

She tells us dolts that “the reason that everyone thinks journalists misquote them is that the person who is writing is the one who gets to tell the story… Journalists who think they are telling ‘the truth’ don't understand the truth. We each have our own truth… So everyone feels misquoted because people say 20 or 30 sentences for every one sentence that a journalist prints. It's always in the context of the journalist's story, not the speaker's story.[D]on't expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of. … And whether or not someone actually said what [the journalist] said they said, they will probably still feel misquoted.”

Ann sez:"supporting the war is something both Republicans and Democrats can do"

No, didn't forget that actually. You are non-responsive to the substantive criticisms made of you.

You constantly: A) attack Democrats with right wing talking points. B) Post Republican talking points. (Saying O'Hanlon is a war critic, for one, after the guy backed the invasion, occupation and surge. Some critic. This is a setup job to prolong the occupation, even Cheney pointed to it.)

Lieberman is not a Democrat any more. He left the party when he refused to respect the primary voters' decision. He won't even conduct oversight over the Katrina mistakes, which continue because his nose is so far up Bush's rump. Some Democrat!

And Ann, you say you are a liberal, but I don't see that reflected in what you write. Even above, you say dKos is "vile." You won't defend Constitutional safeguards or Bush's power grabs. Some liberal.

And Bill Lueders is a good man who has published plenty of articles critical of politicians of all stripes. He is principled and stands by his beliefs. I sincerely believe you have insulted him over a situation where you panicked and he exercised good judgment which was vindicated in time.

Bill Lueders' article seems unfair towards Althouse and I can understand how that bugs her. However, the guy was vindicated on the central issue, and I think Althouse treated him unfairly first (thus provoking him to be unfair towards her).

I haven't listened to the whole program, but if all Lueders was trying to say was that it may be a legit threat or it may not be and we should wait for more info, he was right. And, unless Althouse knows more about Leuders to back it up, he didn't deserve to be called someone who doesn't take terrorism seriously based on his sensible comments about the cheese thing.

It looks like Althouse was treating him as a representative of Leftists Who Wanna Downplay Terrorism, instead of just Bill Leuders wanting to know more information before concluding the cheese was a terrorist dry run. Then she gets mad when Leuders doesn't treat her as an independent centrist or liberal hawk, but instead as a shill for the GOP. That was unfair of him, but it came after he was accused on the radio for being someone who doesn't care about keeping America safe.

I understand there's a political agenda behind downplaying terrorism. But there's also political agendas behind those leaping to conclusions about every oddball story that can be speculated about as possibly being part of a coming terror attack. I stopped reading blogs like Michelle Malkin in part for this reason. I found myself being manipulated by shady people with shady agendas. Best to tune them out.

After years of those sorts of blogs leaping to conclusions in order to serve their agendas only to have things turn out to be - time and time again - much ado about nothing, I suspect the reason Althouse hasn't learned to take the Leuders approach of waiting and seeing what the facts are is because she still is under the influence of those blogs.

With all of that said, the worst thing that can happen is to elect leaders who'll be complacent about terrorism. We need a government that is serious and competent about the threat, but I don't need to be whipped up into a frenzy by every odd looking hunk of cheese on a plane in order to recognize that. And I notice that a lot of the people trying to keep me whipped up all the time are pushing for changes in America (walls on our borders and crazy sh*t like that) that I don't want but they might think I'd let happen if I were more scared.